Difference between revisions of "Subjective"
(Created page with "Upon reading Christopher Funkhouser's text "Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," I noticed that Funkhouse...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Upon reading Christopher Funkhouser's text "Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," I noticed that Funkhouser steers away from using absolute definitions. Instead, he offers insight regarding digital poetry, while making it clear that digital poetry can take countless forms. I found this text relevant and important, as we have discussed in class that there is not one form to electronic literature. Rather, it is something that each of us may understand differently and may be important to some of us in ways that others do not perceive. Though many digital poems may have similar elements, they are not to be mistaken as uniform. Funkhouser implies this when he states that "Digital poems, while built on similar principles, are always being technically, culturally, and imaginatively redefined" (Funkhouser). The flexibility of what can be considered digital poetry makes it possible for people to continue creating new meaning out of digital poetry for years to come. It prevents works from monotony and similarities, and instead promotes thinking outside of the box. Works such as Funkhouser's prove that there is no one way of thinking or writing that is correct or that must be used, which I find extremely inspiring. | + | Upon reading Christopher Funkhouser's text "Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," I noticed that Funkhouser steers away from using absolute definitions. Instead, he offers insight regarding digital poetry, while making it clear that digital poetry can take countless forms. I found this text relevant and important, as we have discussed in class that there is not one form to electronic literature. Rather, it is something that each of us may understand differently and may be important to some of us in ways that others do not perceive. Though many digital poems may have similar elements, they are not to be mistaken as uniform. Funkhouser implies this when he states that "Digital poems, while built on similar principles, are always being technically, culturally, and imaginatively redefined" (Funkhouser). The flexibility of what can be considered digital poetry makes it possible for people to continue creating new [[meaning]] out of digital poetry for years to come. It prevents works from monotony and similarities, and instead promotes thinking outside of the box. Works such as Funkhouser's prove that there is no one way of thinking or writing that is correct or that must be used, which I find extremely inspiring. |
Latest revision as of 23:03, 9 October 2017
Upon reading Christopher Funkhouser's text "Digital Poetry: A Look at Generative, Visual, and Interconnected Possibilities in its First Four Decades," I noticed that Funkhouser steers away from using absolute definitions. Instead, he offers insight regarding digital poetry, while making it clear that digital poetry can take countless forms. I found this text relevant and important, as we have discussed in class that there is not one form to electronic literature. Rather, it is something that each of us may understand differently and may be important to some of us in ways that others do not perceive. Though many digital poems may have similar elements, they are not to be mistaken as uniform. Funkhouser implies this when he states that "Digital poems, while built on similar principles, are always being technically, culturally, and imaginatively redefined" (Funkhouser). The flexibility of what can be considered digital poetry makes it possible for people to continue creating new meaning out of digital poetry for years to come. It prevents works from monotony and similarities, and instead promotes thinking outside of the box. Works such as Funkhouser's prove that there is no one way of thinking or writing that is correct or that must be used, which I find extremely inspiring.
